I just wanted to make sure that you also advocated the same for socially-acceptable vices.
I don't know if you responded to the question about treatment for riding a motorcycle without a helmet. I think that, if the injury sustained could have been prevented or alleviated by the wearing of a helmet (or any other safety gear, such as boots, long pants, sleeves), then that too should be the responsibility of the rider. I rode for a number of years and always practiced what I preach.
So just to clarify: I am supporting your stance. If a person has a peanut or shellfish allergy, it is up to that person to ensure their own safety. If proper precautions are taken and it is the fault of a third party, then that third party is responsible.
Well, “You’re still way off the mark” is a strange way to start agreeing.
Go ahead...
Smoke.
Consume far more calories than you burn.
Ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
Eat peanut butter without an Epi-Pen handy.*
Just make sure you’re not compelling others to pay for extensive bodily repairs.
(* - I recall a story of some kid, seriously allergic to peanut butter, who desperately wanted to know what a Reeses’ Peanut Butter Cup tasted like. He told a friend to call 911, jabbed himself with an Epi-Pen, and ate the treat.)